criminology board exam reviewer

 Home
 Criminalistics
 L.E.A.
 Law
 Crime Detection
 Criminal Sociology
 Correction
 Blog
 Contact Us

Evidence
1

I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION:

A. Importance of the study of Evidence in Law Enforcement:

As an element of our Criminal Justice System, it is the duty of every law enforcement agencies to provide the prosecution
with the materials and information (Evidence) necessary in order to support conviction.

Every person is entitled to be presumed innocent of a crime or wrong, unless proven otherwise. This is a prima facie
presumption which must be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

B. Connecting the chain of events through Evidence during Trial:

Trial refers to “the examination before a competent tribunal, according to the laws of the land, of the facts in issue in a
cause, for the purposes of determining such issue” (U.S. v. Raymundo, 14 Phil 416).

Evidence helps in the determination of Questions of Facts by helping the judge reconstruct the chain of events from the
conception up to the consummation of a criminal design.

C. Factum Probandum and Factum Probans

Factum Probandum – The ultimate facts to be proven. These are the propositions of law.

Examples:
• murder was committed thru treachery
• robbery was made through force upon things

Factum Probans – The evidentiary Facts. These addresses questions of fact.

Examples:
• exit wounds were in front indicating that victim was shot at the back
• destroyed locks indicative of force upon things

Thus, the outcome of every trial is determined by:

• Propositions of law, and

• Questions of fact.

D. Proof and Evidence

Evidence – the means to arrive at a conclusion. Under the Revised Rules of Court, evidence is defined as “the means,
sanctioned by the rules, for ascertainment in a judicial proceeding, the truth, respecting a matter of fact”.
Proof – the result of introducing evidence. The establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the judge as to
the facts in issue. It refers to the accumulation of evidence sufficient to persuade the trial court.
Quantum of evidence – the totality of evidence presented for consideration
Quantum of proof – refers to the degree of proof required in order to arrive at a conclusion.
Burden of evidence – the duty of a party of going forward with evidence.
Burden of proof – the duty of the affirmative to prove that which it alleges.

Variations on degrees of proof based on type of action:

1. Criminal Action – proof beyond reasonable doubt [that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind]
2. Civil Action – preponderance of evidence [evidence of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered to
refute it]
3. Administrative Action – sufficiency of evidence [that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion]

E. Exclusionary Rule. (Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)

Evidence ILLEGALY OBTAINED are inadmissible for reasons of public policy. This is so because of the constitutional
requirement of due process. Due process has been defined as “the law that hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon
inquiry, and renders judgment only after fair trial”.

As a result, jurisprudence has evolved a rule that renders inadmissible any evidence obtained in an illegal search from being
introduced in trial.

F. Principle of Chain of Custody of Evidence

If the evidence is of a type which cannot be easily recognized or can readily be confused or tampered with, the proponent
of the object must present evidence of its chain of custody. The proponent need not negate all possibilities of substitution or
tampering in the chain of custody, but must show that:
The evidence is identified as the same object which was taken from the scene;
It was not tampered with, or that any alteration can be sufficiently explained (i.e. discoloration due to the application of
ninhydrine solution, etc.); and
The persons who have handled the evidence are known and may be examined in court with regard to the object.

II. GENERAL PROVISIONS:

A. Concepts of evidence:

1. It is a means of ascertainment – used to arrive at a legal conclusion

2. It is sanctioned by the rules of court – meaning, not excluded by the rules on relevancy and admissibility
3. It is used in a judicial proceeding – there is a jural conflict involving different rights asserted by different parties
4. It pertains to the truth respecting a matter of fact – evidence represents a “claim” either for the prosecution or for the
defense where issues (clashes of view) are present.

Admissibility of Evidence:

For evidence to be admissible, it must be:

1) relevant to the issue [relevancy test], and
2) not excluded by the law or rules of court [competency test].

Note: To determine the relevancy of any item of proof, the purpose for which it is sought to be introduced must first be
known (There must be a formal offer).

Test of relevancy of evidence:

Whether or not the factual information tendered for evaluation of the trial court would be helpful in the determination of the
factual issue that is disputed.

When is evidence relevant?

When it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in it’s:

1) existence, or
2) non-existence

In other words, evidence is relevant when it is:

1) material, and
2) has probative value

What is meant by “probative value”?

It is the tendency of the evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.

“Collateral Matters” not admissible except when it tend in any reasonable degree to establish probability or improbability of
the fact in issue.

Collateral matters – matters other than the fact in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or
non-existence of the facts in issue.

Collateral matters are classified into:

1. Antecedent circumstances – facts existing before the commission of the crime [i.e. hatred, bad moral character of the
offender, previous plan, conspiracy, etc.]
2. Concomitant circumstances – facts existing during the commission of the crime [i.e. opportunity, presence of the
accused at the scene of the crime, etc.]
3. Subsequent circumstances – facts existing after the commission of the crime [i.e. flight, extrajudicial admission to third
party, attempt to conceal effects of the crime, possession of stolen property, etc.]

Query: Is modus operandi an antecedent, concomitant or subsequent circumstance?

B. Judicial Notice, basis of:

Judicial notice is based on necessity and expediency. This is so because what is known need not be proved.

Different kinds of judicial notices:

1. mandatory
2. discretionary
3. hearing required

C. Confession and Admission, distinguished:

Confession – an acknowledgement of guilt.
Admission – an acknowledgment of facts.

Different kinds of confession/admission:

1. Judicial
2. Extrajudicial
3. Oral
4. Written
5. Voluntary
6. Forced

Different kinds of evidence:

1. Relevant evidence – evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action.
2. Material evidence – evidence is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of
substantive law and pleadings.
3. Competent evidence – not excluded by law.
4. Direct evidence – proves the fact in issue without aid of inference or presumptions.
5. Circumstantial evidence - the proof of fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of a
particular fact in dispute may be inferred as necessary or probable consequence.
6. Positive evidence – evidence which affirms a fact in issue.
7. Negative evidence - evidence which denies the existence of a fact in issue.
8. Rebutting evidence – given to repel, counter act or disprove facts given in evidence by the other party.
9. Primary/Best evidence – that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty.
10. Secondary evidence – that which indicates the existence of a more original source of information.
11. Expert evidence – the testimony of one possessing knowledge not usually acquired by other persons.
12. Prima facie evidence – evidence which can stand alone to support a conviction unless rebutted.
13. Conclusive evidence – incontrovertible evidence
14. Cumulative evidence – additional evidence of the same kind bearing on the same point.
15. Corroborative evidence – additional evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same point as that
of previously offered evidence.
16. Character evidence – evidence of a person’s moral standing or personality traits in a community based on reputation
or opinion.
17. Demeanor evidence – the behavior of a witness on the witness stand during trial to be considered by the judge on the
issue of credibility.
18. Demonstrative evidence – evidence that has tangible and exemplifying purpose.
19. Hearsay evidence – oral testimony or documentary evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit to
be attached to the witness himself.
20. Testimonial evidence – oral averments given in open court by the witness.
21. Object/Auotoptic proferrence/Real evidence – those addressed to the senses of the court (sight, hearing, smell, touch,
taste).
22. Documentary evidence – those consisting of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of its contents.

Best Evidence Rule:

When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original of the
document.

For exceptions, see Sec. 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.

A document is legally considered “Original” when:

1. It is the subject of an inquiry
2. When in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents.
3. When an entry is repeated in ordinary course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the
transaction.

Question: May a “fake” document be considered as “original” or “authentic”?

Yes. A forged or spurious document when presented in court for examination is considered as the original fake/forged
document. Thus, a mere photocopy of the allegedly forged or spurious document is only secondary to the original
questioned document.

Secondary Evidence
When the original document has been:
1. lost,
2. destroyed, or
3. cannot be produced in court.

The offeror without bad faith must:

1. prove its execution or existence, and
2. prove the cause of its unavailability.

Secondary evidence may consist of:

1. a copy,
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document, or
3. by testimony of witnesses.

When original document is in the custody of:

1. adverse party – adverse party must have reasonable notice to produce it. After such notice and satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce it, secondary evidence may be presented.
2. public officer – contents may be proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
III. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:

Qualifications of witnesses:
1. can perceive
2. can make known their perception to others
3. not disqualified by reason of mental incapacity, immaturity, marriage, privileged communications, or “dead man’s
statute”.

“Res Inter Alios Acta” Rule

General Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.

Exception:
1. admission by a co-partner or agent
2. admission by a conspirator
3. admission by privies
4. admission by silence

In the above cases, the admission of one person is admissible as evidence against another.

Testimonial Knowledge:
General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his own perception. Any statement which derives its strength from another’s personal knowledge is hearsay, and is
therefore inadmissible.

Exceptions:
1. Dying declarations (ante-mortem statements)
2. Declaration against interest
3. Act or declaration about pedigree
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
5. Common reputation
6. Part of the res gestae
7. Entries in the course of business
8. Entries in official records
9. Commercial lists and the like
10. Learned treatises
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
12. Examination of child victim/witness in cases of child abuse

IV. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS:

Burden of proof – the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by
the amount of evidence required by law.

Presumption – an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection with another
which is known or a conjecture based on past experience as to what course human affairs ordinarily take.

2 kinds of presumptions:
1. Conclusive presumptions [jure et de jure] – based on rules of substantive law which cannot be overcome by evidence
to the contrary.
2. Disputable presumptions [prima facie presumptions, rebuttable presumptions] – based on procedural rules and may be
overcome by evidence to the contrary.

Kinds of Conclusive Presumptions:

1. Estoppel by record or judgment – the preclusion to deny the truth of matters set forth in a record, whether judicial or
legislative, and also deny the facts adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction (Salud v. CA, 233 SCRA 387).
2. Estoppel by deed – a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other and his
privies any right or title in derogation of the deed or denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it (Iriola v. Felices, 30
SCRA 202).
3. Estoppel in pais – based upon express representation or statements or upon positive acts or conduct. A party cannot, in
the course of litigation or in dealings in pais, be permitted to repudiate his representation or occupy inconsistent positions.
4. Estoppel against Tenant – the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement
of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
Note: For Kinds of disputable presumptions, see Sec. 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Presentation of Evidence:
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done is open court, and under oath or affirmation.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answer of the witness
shall be given orally.

Rights and Obligations of witnesses:

1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires.
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law.
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to the fact from
which the fact in issue would be presumed, but a witness must answer to the facts of his previous final conviction for an
offense.

Order of Examination of individual witnesses:

Direct examination by the proponent
Cross examination by the opponent
Re-direct examination by the proponent
Re-cross examination by the opponent

Direct examination – the examination in chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
Cross examination – the examination by the adverse party of the witness as to any matter stated in the direct examination,
or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue.
Re-direct examination – second questioning by the proponent to explain or supplement answers given in the cross
examination.
Re-cross examination – second questioning by the adverse party on matters stated on the re-direct and also on such
matters as may be allowed by court.

Different Types of Questions:

Leading questions –It is one where the answer is already supplied by the examiner into the mouth of the witness. [Ex. You
saw Jose killed Juan because you were present when it happened, didn’t you?]
Misleading question – a question which cannot be answered without making an unintended admission. [Ex. Do you still beat
your wife?]
Compound question – a question which calls for a single answer to more than one question. [Ex. Have you seen and heard
him?]
Argumentative question – a type of leading question which reflects the examiners interpretation of the facts. [Ex. Why were
you driving carelessly?]
Speculative question – a question which assumes a disputed fact not stated by the witness as true. [Ex. The victim cried in
pain, didn’t he?]
Conclusionary question – a question which asks for an opinion which the witness is not qualified or permitted to answer.
[Ex. Asking a high school drop-out whether the gun used is a Cal. 45 pistol or 9mm pistol]
Cumulative question – a question which has already been asked and answered.
Harassing/Embarrassing question – [Ex. Are you a homosexual?]

Classes of Documents:
Documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or a foreign country.
2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments.
3. Public records (1) kept in the Philippines, or private documents (2) required by law to be entered therein.

All other writings are private.

SOME USEFUL LATIN TERMS AND LEGAL MAXIMS:

 Verba legis non est decendendum – from the words of the law there can be no departure.

Dura lex sed lex – the law may be harsh but it is the law.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat – ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Ignorantia facti excusat – mistake of fact excuses.

Praeter intentionem – different from that which was intended.

Error in personae – mistake in identity.

Abberatio Ictus – mistake in the blow

Nulum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing the same.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.

Actus mi invictu reus, nisi mens facit reum – an act done by me against my will is not my act.

Mens rea – guilty mind.

Actus reus – guilty act.

Res ipsa loquitor – the thing speaks for itself.

Causa Proxima – proximate cause which produced the immediate effect.

Prima facie – at first glance.

Locus Criminis – scene of the crime or crime scene.

Pro Reo – principle in Criminal Law which states that where the statute admits of several interpretations, the one most
favorable to the accused shall be adopted.

Res Gestae – the thing itself.

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus – false in one part of the statement would render the entire statement false (note: this
maxim is not recognized in our jurisdiction).

 Police
reviewer
and Photography>police
Identification>personal
Detection
ballistics
8Questioned
1Forensic
1forensic and
2lie detection
interrogation
reviewer
1forensic and
reviewer
5forensic
ballisticsphotography
identification
Interrogation>lie detection
interrogation
5Forensic
reviewer
ballistics
Documents>questioned
chemistry
Chemistry reviewer
and definition
reviewer
and
reviewer
2forensic
document
Toxicology>forensic
2forensic of termspolice
1Forensic
interrogation
reviewer 3lie
Ballistics>forensic
6forensic
toxicologyballistics
definition
chemistry
reviewerballistics
reviewer
ballistics photography
Medicine>forensic
reviewer
detection and
definition
reviewer
3forensic
of1criminalistics
termsquestioned
definition of of review
medicine
1lieofdetection
interrogation andnotesPersonal
Create
termsforensic
7forensic
ballistics
termsforensic
reviewdocument
a free of
definition
reviewer
website
interrogation
reviewer 4lie
ballistics
ballistics reviewer
4forensic
reviewer
questionscriminalistics
chemistry
with
termsLie
detection
review
questions
Law
NO. questions
OperationPolice
reviewer
Security
(Book
jurisprudence
9160
Technology
Definition
to Criminal
ManagementSeminar 2Administration
1administration
Operational
ManagementLaw
1intelligence
2)>Heinous
review
and
CriminologyCriminal
of and of police
ProcedureCriminal Of
Enforcement
secret
Crimes Act Police
service
Of
questionsFundamentals
Investigation>fire
Investigation>traffic operation
TermsPolice
onJustice
Contemporary
Report Organization>administration
organization
PlanningIntelligence review
And
Administration
reviewer
1993Republic
Evidencecriminal
technology
definition of
SystemJuvenile
Writing Police of Criminal
and
termsDrug
(Technical questions
Secret
2intelligence
Act review
No.
jurisprudence 2Patrol
questionsCriminal
and secret
8294Anti-Money
InvestigationSpecial
investigation
Education
ProblemPolice
DelinquencyHuman
English)crime reviewer
Ethics and police
service
definition
Vice
detection
Behavior
and organization
Organization
Service>intelligence and
Law
Crime
1Trafficof And
secret
reviewer
Laundering (BookAct
termscriminal
Control>Drug
Community
reviewersociology of crimes review questionsPenal Management>penal management review questions review
and review
service
1)Criminal
3Industrial
Of 2001
InvestigationFire
Operation
Crises and
Education R.A.
Accident
questionsIntroduction
Relationscriminology
1Probationcorrectional administration review questions